Jason M. Lemkin argues that a VP of Sales should not be left without a committed VP of Marketing. He emphasizes that marketing must have a measurable ‘commit’ (e.g., MQLs, MQOs, SQLs, opportunities or raw leads) — any numeric target — to properly support sales.
One mistake I see is Ms. Sequencing this. Or sometimes today it's actually more common. The old days is letting a VP of sales sit for 6, 9, 12 months without a VP of marketing. A VP not. Not some little, some person with two years of experience, but without someone with a commit to sales. The most the highest function organization is when marketing has a commit to sale. It doesn't really matter what the commit is, whether it's opportunity. I don't like revenue, but it could be MQLs or MQOs or SQLs or S. I really don't care whether it's even raw leads. Everyone hates it, but I don't care as long as it's a frigging commit. It's a number, right?
